{ "items": [ "\n\n
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We sought to determine whether six commonly used immunosuppressive regimens were associated with lower antibody responses after seasonal influenza vaccination in patients with IBD. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study including 213 IBD patients and 53 healthy controls; 165 who had received seasonal influenza vaccine and 101 who had not. IBD medications included infliximab, thiopurines, infliximab and thiopurine combination therapy, ustekinumab, vedolizumab or tofacitinib. The primary outcome was antibody responses against influenza/A H3N2 and A/H1N1, compared to controls, adjusting for age, prior vaccination and interval between vaccination and sampling. RESULTS: Lower antibody responses against influenza A/H3N2 were observed in patients on infliximab (Geometric Mean Ratio 0.35 [95% CI 0.20-0.60], p=0.0002), combination of infliximab and thiopurine therapy (0.46 [0.27-0.79], p=0.0050) and tofacitinib (0.28 [0.14-0.57], p=0.0005) compared to controls. Lower antibody responses against A/H1N1 were observed in patients on infliximab (0.29 [0.15-0.56], p=0.0003), combination of infliximab and thiopurine therapy (0.34 [0.17-0.66], p=0.0016), thiopurine monotherapy (0.46 [0.24-0.87], p=0.017) and tofacitinib (0.23 [0.10-0.56], p=0.0013). Ustekinumab and vedolizumab were not associated with reduced antibody responses against A/H3N2 or A/H1N1. Vaccination in the previous year was associated with higher antibody responses to A/H3N2. Vaccine-induced anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentration weakly correlated with antibodies against H3N2 (r=0.27; p=0.0004) and H1N1 (r=0.33; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination in both the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 seasons was associated with significantly higher antibody responses to influenza/A than no vaccination or vaccination in 2021-2022 alone. Infliximab and tofacitinib are associated with lower binding antibody responses to Influenza/A, similar to COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody responses.
\n \n\n \n \nCentral nervous system (CNS) tuberculosis represents around 1% of all cases of tuberculosis. Yet, despite its relative rarity, it is an important clinical problem because it kills or maims a higher proportion of patients than any other form of tuberculosis. CNS tuberculosis takes two major forms: tuberculous meningitis (TBM) and cerebral tuberculoma. TBM causes death or severe neurological sequelae in 50% of sufferers and is the most dangerous form of tuberculosis. TBM causes progressive confusion and coma and is almost always fatal if left untreated. It should be considered a medical emergency, mandating rapid diagnosis and treatment. Cerebral tuberculomas, in contrast, are not immediately life-threatening. They are well-defined, granulomatous, space-occupying lesions, which can occur anywhere in the CNS, including the spinal cord. Their clinical manifestations depend upon their anatomical location, but an isolated seizure is the most common presentation. Tuberculomas are not immediately life-threatening unless they rupture and release bacteria into the subarachnoid space to cause TBM.
\n \n\n \n \nLongitudinal, community-based sampling is important for understanding prevalence and transmission of respiratory pathogens. Using a minimally invasive sampling method, the FAMILY Micro study monitored the oral, nasal and hand microbiota of families for 6 months. Here, we explore participant experiences and opinions. A mixed methods approach was utilised. A quantitative questionnaire was completed after every sampling timepoint to report levels of discomfort and pain, as well as time taken to collect samples. Participants were also invited to discuss their experiences in a qualitative structured exit interview. We received questionnaires from 36 families. Most adults and children >5y experienced no pain (94% and 70%) and little discomfort (73% and 47% no discomfort) regardless of sample type, whereas children \u22645y experienced variable levels of pain and discomfort (48% no pain but 14% hurts even more, whole lot or worst; 38% no discomfort but 33% moderate, severe, or extreme discomfort). The time taken for saliva and hand sampling decreased over the study. We conducted interviews with 24 families. Families found the sampling method straightforward, and adults and children >5y preferred nasal sampling using a synthetic absorptive matrix over nasopharyngeal swabs. It remained challenging for families to fit sampling into their busy schedules. Adequate fridge/freezer space and regular sample pick-ups were found to be important factors for feasibility. Messaging apps proved extremely effective for engaging with participants. Our findings provide key information to inform the design of future studies, specifically that self-sampling at home using minimally invasive procedures is feasible in a family context.
\n \n\n \n \nOBJECTIVES: To develop and validate the Oxford Needle Experience (ONE) scale, an instrument to assess needle fear, attitudes and expectations in the general population. DESIGN: Cross-sectional validation study. SETTING: Internet-based with participants in the UK and USA. PARTICIPANTS: UK and US representative samples stratified by age, sex, and ethnicity using the Prolific Academic platform. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Exploratory factor analysis with categorical variables and a polychoric correlation matrix followed by promax oblique rotation on the UK sample for the ONE scale. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistic evaluating the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), standardised root mean squared residual (SRMR) and comparative fit index (CFI) on the US sample. Reliability as internal consistency using McDonald's omega. Convergent validity using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Predictive and discriminant validity using logistic regression ORs of association (OR). RESULTS: The population included 1000 respondents, 500 in the UK and 500 in the USA. Minimum average partial correlation and a scree plot suggested four factors should be retained: injection hesitancy, blood-related hesitancy, recalled negative experiences and perceived benefits, yielding a 19-question scale. On CFA, the RMSEA was 0.070 (90% CI, 0.064 to 0.077), SRMR 0.053 and CFI 0.925. McDonald's omega was 0.92 and 0.93 in the UK and US samples, respectively. Convergent validity with the four-item Oxford Coronavirus Explanations, Attitudes and Narratives Survey (OCEANS) needle fear scale demonstrated a strong correlation (r=0.83). Predictive validity with a single-question COVID-19 vaccination status question demonstrated a strong association, OR (95%\u2009CI) 0.97 (0.96 to 0.98), p<0.0001 in the US sample. Discriminant validity with a question regarding the importance of controlling what enters the body confirmed the ONE score does not predict this unrelated outcome, OR 1.00 (0.99, 1.01), p=0.996 in the US sample. CONCLUSIONS: The ONE scale is a reliable and valid multidimensional scale that may be useful in predicting vaccine hesitancy, designing public health interventions to improve vaccine uptake and exploring alternatives to needles for medical procedures.
\n \n\n \n \nPurpose: The prevalence of osteoporosis increases as the population ages. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of osteoporosis among the general population \u2265 50\u00a0years old in Iran. Methods: Multiple databases including Scopus, WOS, Medline, Embase, and Persian databases (SID and Magiran) were systematically searched to identify relevant research papers. All population-based studies estimating the prevalence of osteoporosis in the Iranian population were included and imported into Endnote software. Two authors independently reviewed the articles. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata software, and a significance level of 0.05 was applied to the analyses. Results: Totally 2117 documents were retrieved from the databases up until October 11, 2022. After reading the full texts, 10 documents were included in the study. Our results indicated that the pooled prevalence of osteoporosis in the femoral neck region was 0.19 (95%CI: 0.12\u20130.26) and 0.19 (95%CI: 0.13\u20130.25) for women and men, respectively. Pooled prevalence of spinal osteoporosis was 0.29 (95%CI: 0.21\u20130.38) among women and 0.16 (95%CI: 0.12\u20130.19) among men. The total pooled prevalence of osteoporosis was 0.38 (95%CI: 0.29\u20130.48) for women and 0.25 (95%CI: 0.22\u20130.29) for men. Conclusion: Our study highlights the elevated prevalence of osteoporosis among individuals aged 50\u00a0years and older, with females exhibiting higher rates. Notably, osteoporosis in the femoral neck region demonstrated the lowest prevalence in both sexes. The implementation of comprehensive strategies is imperative to address osteoporosis problems effectively.
\n \n\n \n \nTyphoid fever is an invasive bacterial disease associated with bloodstream infection that causes a high burden of disease in Africa and Asia. Typhoid primarily affects individuals ranging from infants through to young adults. The causative organism, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica\u00a0serovar Typhi is transmitted via the faecal-oral route, crossing the intestinal epithelium and disseminating to systemic and intracellular sites, causing an undifferentiated febrile illness. Blood culture remains the practical reference standard for diagnosis of typhoid fever, where culture testing is available, but novel diagnostic modalities are an important priority under investigation. Since 2017, remarkable progress has been made in defining the global burden of both typhoid fever and antimicrobial resistance; in understanding disease pathogenesis and immunological protection through the use of controlled human infection; and in advancing effective vaccination programmes through strategic multipartner collaboration and targeted clinical trials in multiple high-incidence priority settings. This Primer thus offers a timely update of progress and perspective on future priorities for the global scientific community.
\n \n\n \n \nCompared to intramuscular vaccines, nasally administered vaccines have the advantage of inducing local mucosal immune responses that may block infection and interrupt transmission of respiratory pathogens. Live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is effective in preventing influenza in children, but a correlate of protection for LAIV remains unclear. Studying young adult volunteers, we observe that LAIV induces distinct, compartmentalized, antibody responses in the mucosa and blood. Seeking immunologic correlates of these distinct antibody responses we find associations with mucosal IL-33 release in the first 8\u2009hours post-inoculation and divergent CD8+ and circulating T follicular helper (cTfh) T cell responses 7 days post-inoculation. Mucosal antibodies are induced separately from blood antibodies, are associated with distinct immune responses early post-inoculation, and may provide a correlate of protection for mucosal vaccination. This study was registered as NCT04110366 and reports primary (mucosal antibody) and secondary (blood antibody, and nasal viral load and cytokine) endpoint data.
\n \n\n \n \nINTRODUCTION: Invasive non-typhoidal Salmonellosis (iNTS) is mainly caused by Salmonella enterica serovars Typhimurium and Enteritidis and is estimated to result in 77 500 deaths per year, disproportionately affecting children under 5 years of age in sub-Saharan Africa. Invasive non-typhoidal Salmonellae serovars are increasingly acquiring resistance to first-line antibiotics, thus an effective vaccine would be a valuable tool in reducing morbidity and mortality from infection. While NTS livestock vaccines are in wide use, no licensed vaccines exist for use in humans. Here, a first-in-human study of a novel vaccine (iNTS-GMMA) containing S. Typhimurium and S. Enteritidis Generalised Modules for Membrane Antigens (GMMA) outer membrane vesicles is presented. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: The Salmonella Vaccine Study in Oxford is a randomised placebo-controlled participant-observer blind phase I study of the iNTS-GMMA vaccine. Healthy adult volunteers will be randomised to receive three intramuscular injections of the iNTS-GMMA vaccine, containing equal quantities of S. Typhimurium and S. Enteritidis GMMA particles adsorbed on Alhydrogel, or an Alhydrogel placebo at 0, 2 and 6 months. Participants will be sequentially enrolled into three groups: group 1, 1:1 randomisation to low dose iNTS-GMMA vaccine or placebo; group 2, 1:1 randomisation to full dose iNTS-GMMA vaccine or placebo; group 3, 2:1 randomisation to full dose or lower dose (dependant on DSMC reviews of groups 1 and 2) iNTS-GMMA vaccine or placebo.The primary objective is safety and tolerability of the vaccine. The secondary objective is immunogenicity as measured by O-antigen based ELISA. Further exploratory objectives will characterise the expanded human immune profile. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study has been obtained from the South Central-Oxford A Research Ethics Committee (Ethics REF:22/SC/0059). Appropriate documentation and regulatory approvals have been acquired. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed articles and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT Number: 2020-000510-14.
\n \n\n \n \nThe global public health nonprofit organization PATH hosted the third Vaccines Against Shigella and Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (VASE) Conference in Washington, DC, from November 29 to December 1, 2022. This international gathering focused on cutting-edge research related to the development of vaccines against neglected diarrheal pathogens including Shigella, enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC), Campylobacter, and non-typhoidal Salmonella. In addition to the conference's plenary content, the agenda featured ten breakout workshops on topics of importance to the enteric vaccine field. This unique aspect of VASE Conferences allows focused groups of attendees to engage in in-depth discussions on subjects of interest to the enteric vaccine development community. In 2022, the workshops covered a range of topics. Two focused on the public health value of enteric vaccines, with one examining how to translate evidence into policy and the other on the value proposition of potential combination vaccines against bacterial enteric pathogens. Two more workshops explored new tools for the development and evaluation of vaccines, with the first on integrating antigen/antibody technologies for mucosal vaccine and immunoprophylactic development, and the second on adjuvants specifically for Shigella vaccines for children in low- and middle-income countries. Another pair of workshops covered the status of vaccines against two emerging enteric pathogens, Campylobacter and invasive non-typhoidal Salmonella. The remaining four workshops examined the assessment of vaccine impact on acute and long-term morbidity. These included discussions on the nature and severity of intestinal inflammation; cellular immunity and immunological memory in ETEC and Shigella infections; clinical and microbiologic endpoints for Shigella vaccine efficacy studies in children; and intricacies of protective immunity to enteric pathogens. This article provides a brief summary of the presentations and discussions at each workshop in order to share these sessions with the broader enteric vaccine field.
\n \n\n \n \n